From: Julie Dawson 
Subject: Equality of Opportunity -- HISTORY.TXT  (fwd)
accommodations was  unrealistic  because an employer would have
to demonstrate either that the business would be  fundamentally
changed  or that it would be forced to file bankruptcy.  The
definition of  handicap  (see Appendix F) was also problematic
for Kemp.  He proposed a restricted definition that focused on
what he termed the  truly disabled : the  severely handicapped 
and persons  excluded because of myths, fears and stereotypes.  
Kemp s emphasis on the vagueness of language, limits for
accommodation, and definition of disability, foreshadowed several
issues that would dominate congressional deliberations.
     A vigorous response came from Thomas M. Boyd, Acting
Assistant Attorney General, who presented the position of the
Reagan administration.  While the administration  is deeply
committed to the goal of bringing individuals with handicaps into
the mainstream of American life,  wrote Boyd,  we have very
serious reservations  about the extent and standards of the ADA. 
Highlighting the potential costs associated with disability
rights, and rejecting the link to provisions for minori ties and
women, Boyd emphasized the need to keep the pursuit of equal
opportunity  within manageable bounds.   Especially problematic
were the ways in which the ADA departed from Section 504 in two
ways: first, by requiring barrier removal uniformly for both
existing and new facilities; second, by incorporating the
 utterly unrealistic and extreme  provision that a business could
defend itself against charges of discrimination only if its basic
existence was threatened by the cost of accommodations.  The
administration objected to the ADA s novel definitions of
 handicap  and  reasonable accommodation,  and questioned the
application of reasonable accommodation beyond employment
settings.  Boyd also repudiated the proposal for requiring all
new transportation vehicles to be accessible, and demurred to
ordering implementation of universal design in new housing. 
Finally, the administration proposed a more limited standard of
accessibility to public accommodations, and demanded that the
effective date for the bill be delayed at least a year.
     The ADA was introduced in 1988 to solicit the endorsement of
presidential candidates and induce them to outbid one
another.Although the Reagan administration, as illus trated in
Boyd s letter, was at best cautious in its sup port of the ADA,
the disability community s sights were set on the next president. 
In fact, one of the principal reasons for introducing the ADA in
1988 was to use the politics of a presidential election year to
solicit candidate endorsement and induce the candi dates to
outbid one another.  People in the disability community correctly
believed that presidential support was crucial for the ADA s
success.  They worked for both campaigns to encourage disabled
persons to vote and make disability a campaign issue.  They had
some leverage.  On June 30, 1988, the Louis Harris polling
company determined that the disability community comprised 10
percent of the electorate, was  a force to be reckoned with in
the politics of the future,  and could be the deciding factor in
a close election.
     Vice President Bush s personal experience with disability
shaped his relationship with the disability community.  He had a
daughter who died from leukemia, a son with a learning
disability, an uncle with quadriplegia, and a son whose cancer
required a plastic ostomy bag.  In conjunction with his
leadership of President Reagan s Task Force on Regulatory Relief,
his support of the disability community had grown steadily since
1983.  This was due in no small part to Kemp, who worked with
Bush by writing many of his public statements. 
     I am going to do whatever it takes to make sure the disabled
are included in the mainstream.  For too long, they have been
left out, but they are not going to be left out anymore. 
          Vice President George Bush    In the September issue of
the disability magazine Mainstream, Kemp faced off with Timothy
Cook of the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia (PILCOP)
to argue the respective attributes of the two presidential
candidates.  Kemp noted how, on March 1, 1988, Vice President
Bush wrote to the Gallaudet Board of Trustees and urged the Board
 to set an example and . . . appoint a president who is not only
highly qualified, but who is also deaf.   A month before the ADA
was introduced, on March 31, Bush also pledged to support
legislation pro viding persons with disabilities  the same pro
tection in private employment that is now en joyed by women and
minorities.   Kemp noted how Bush made an even stronger
commitment when he participated in the swearing in ceremony of
Paul Hearne as Executive Director of the National Council on
Disability, on August 12, 1988.  Bush s presence alone, before
nearly 100 persons with disabilities and the organization that
authored the original ADA, symbolized his support of the
disability community.  But Bush went further and, while he did
not endorse the ADA introduced to Congress, said that he would
promote a civil rights act for people with disabilities.  Kemp s
efforts in courting Bush also bore fruit at the Republican
convention in August, where Bush incorporated the rights of
disabled persons into his acceptance speech.  He did not say
much, but it was the first time disability was included on such
an occasion:  I am going to do whatever it takes to make sure the
disabled are included in the mainstream.  For too long, they have
been left out, but they are not going to be left out anymore.  
     Cook, a leading disability advocate for Dukakis, focused on
Michael Dukakis s strong record on disability as Governor of
Massachusetts.  Similar to other states, Massachusetts provided
full access for persons with disabilities in all state-assisted
programs and activities.  It was also one of few states to have
an executive-level independent agency to enforce disability civil
rights.  Cook noted that Governor Dukakis strengthened
enforcement mechanisms for accessibility standards, including
barrier-free sidewalks and roadways.  He also made concerted
efforts to recruit persons with disabilities for government
offices, including high-level leadership positions such as the
Massachusetts s Rehabilitation Commission.  Moreover, Governor
Dukakis had augmented Massachusetts  health insurance, attendant
care, and education programs for persons with disabili ties. 
     Yet, while Dukakis promoted accessibility in campaign
functions and gave a mild endorse ment to the principles of the
ADA, he did not court the disability community as vigorously as
Vice President Bush.  In addition to his personal experiences
with disability, Bush s leadership of the Task Force on
Regulatory Relief and the disability community s defensive effort
helped convinced Bush of the power of the community as a voting
block: it commanded respect and could pay high dividends.  Bush
did not let the opportunity escape him.  For example, at the
suggestion of Kemp he made a point to incorporate disability
issues into his presidential debates. 
     Dukakis, on the other hand, was facing criticism that he and
the Democratic party were too beholden to interest groups, which
led him to downplay rather than accentuate direct appeals to
specific constituencies such as persons with disabilities.  He
thereby alienated much of the disability community.  Some of
Dukakis s tempered support of the disability community may in
fact be attributed to the disability community itself.  Some
disability advocates had advised Dukakis not to come out too
strong on behalf of the ADA.  Their goal was to have both
candidates endorse the principles of the ADA so that whoever was
elected would be on their side.  They thus wanted to encourage
Bush to support the ADA by giving him room to outbid Dukakis,
rather than make Bush feel as if he needed to contrast himself
with Dukakis by being more reserved in his support of the ADA.
     ADA advocates also sought the support of members of
Congress.  The disability community joined congressional staff
and members in a cosponsorship drive that began before the ADA
was first introduced and continued throughout the entire session
of Congress.  Cosponsorship is crucial to the success of any
bill.  It promises affirmative votes and enables advocates to
gauge the level of support.  Cosponsorship is also important
because, if one can achieve a cross-section of party and
ideology, it helps thwart reflexive, negative reaction and
partisan labeling.  Although ADA advocates anticipated a high
level of cosponsorship because they presented the ADA as a civil
rights bill, the process proved to be very difficult.  Members
did not take the issue of costs lightly and were reluctant to
attach their name simply because someone else had done so. 
Nevertheless, by the close of the 100th Congress on October 22,
1988, 26 senators and 117 representatives had endorsed the bill.
                     Congressional Hearings
     The message was clear: persons with disabilities struggled
with unequal opportunities; they confronted not only the
challenges of their impairments, but also the barriers society
erects; federal action was necessary to remedy the situation.The
highlights of the 1988 ADA campaign were the congressional
hearings held in September and October.   On September 27, 1988,
the Senate Subcommittee on the Handicapped and the House
Subcommittee on Select Education held a joint hearing in the Hart
Senate Office Building.  On October 24, the House Subcommittee on
Select Education held a hearing in the Lafayette Hotel of Boston,
Massachusetts.  These hearings were not intended to be
substantive examinations of the ADA s provisions.  This bill is
not going anywhere this year,  Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) said
flatly at the joint hearing.  Senator Lowell P. Weicker, Jr.
(R-CT) also conceded that the real battle would not begin until
Congress reconvened in 1989.  But Weicker emphasized the need to
get disability discrimina tion on the table for immediate
discussion:  If there is silence now, there will be silence
later.  If there is indifference to discrimination now, there
will be indifference later.   The purpose was therefore to
establish a record of discrimina tion to humanize the ICD Survey
data with the lives of real persons and make congressional
inaction on the ADA intolerable. 
     Of the 95 witnesses at the two hearings, there was not a
single technical expert speaking to the details of the bill. 
Only seven federal and state government officials testified.  The
remaining witnesses were all from the disability
community persons and parents of persons with disabilities, and
people who worked with disabled persons in such settings as
independent living centers who spoke of their own experiences. 
This was, therefore, the first instance in which a congressional
hearing regarding disability was dominated by the presence of
people with disabilities.  Some of the predicaments identified by
witnesses were not even issues that the ADA addressed.  But the
message was clear: persons with disabilities struggled with
unequal opportunities; they confronted not only the challenges of
their impairments, but also the barriers society erects; federal
action was necessary to remedy the situation.
     The joint hearing in the Hart Senate Office Building
overflowed with eager spectators, many of them disabled, and many
having traveled hundreds of miles to participate.  Around 200
people with disabilities came to Washington for the event from
New Jersey alone.  Senator Weicker actually had to stop the
proceedings to attend to space needs; he asked those present to
rotate so that others watching on television could have a chance
to be in the hearing room.  The stories of those who testified
were gripping and spoke volumes.
     Mary Linden, who had been unable to walk since early
childhood as a result of physicians  surgical errors, launched
the first panel.  She described her struggles with a public
school that considered her unworthy of education.  It was not
until after Linden graduated from a disability- segregated high
school in 1951 that she learned how to write, and then only
because she taught herself.  Subsequently she spent over two
decades accumulating 61 hours of college credit.  To her dismay,
she could not enroll in a four-year college because of
inaccessible public transportation. She therefore had to do all
of her work through correspondence.  Linden said she desperately
wanted to finish her degree because it was necessary for
attaining what she significantly termed  the most precious thing
in the world    a paying job!    I beg you to pass this bill, 
she pleaded, so that other children will not have to face the
same barriers. 
     Twelve-year-old Jade Calegory followed Linden s testimony
and, compared with Linden, presented the stark contrast of what
opportunity could do.  Jade praised the Federal Government for
passing the Education for all Handicapped Children Act because
the act enabled him, with his spina bifida and wheelchair, to
join the rest of his community s children in the public school. 
Jade starred in the movie  Mac and Me,  which he described as
 terrific because it shows a kid with a disability giving help
instead of just getting help, and nobody tries to cure me or take
away my disability by the end of the movie.  That gives people
the idea that it is okay to be disabled and just be accepted for
who you are.   Jade also described his passion for participating
in wheelchair races.  But he reported that he would get
frustrated when he tried to ride a bus home.   Most of the buses
do not have lifts on them.  Some of the drivers are very rude and
get mad if I want to take the bus.  Can you believe that?  I work
and part of my taxes pay for public buses, and then they get mad
just because I am using a wheelchair.  Accessible buses were
important, said Jade, because  it is hard for people to feel good
about themselves if they have to crawl up the stairs of a bus, or
if the driver passes by without stopping. 
     Dan Piper and his mother, Sylvia Piper, illustrated the
uncertainty they faced because of Dan s developmental disability. 
Although the Pipers were told that Dan s condition was  hopeless 
when he was a young child, and that Dan should be
institutionalized, they decided to keep him at home.  Ultimately
he joined the special education program of an integrated public
school, where he took courses with non-disabled peers, helped
manage the football team, and became the lead performer in a
traveling high school lip-sync group.  The Pipers were worried,
however, about what would happen to Dan when he finished school
and wanted to fulfill his dream of getting a job and living in
his own apartment.   Will the landlord decide, because Dan has
---
---------------